OK, I guess “objectionable” is a pretty subjective standard. I object to Jersey Shore, but I don’t expect anyone to take any action as a result.
So let’s just stick to the law, since that’s the spectre you invoked in the OP:
So invoking the same standard… what this video shows is perfectly legal conduct. True?
What does “those with direct experience with adoption mean?” I’m too lazy to go through the cite. There can be vastly different viewpoints on adoption. Three viewpoints: 1) mother giving away child, 2) adopted child and 3) adopting parents. A viewpoint from a young girl who got pregnant, was forced to have the child and then give it up for adoption will be very, very different from the adopting parents. I suspect most adopted kids are in good homes. However, what about kids who never get adopted? Just skimming through the cite, it looks like this concerns only general perceptions of adoption and direct experience of adopting parents. Not a particularly good cite to make a point in an abortion debate (unless you trying to say that more kids are getting adopted than in the past?).
Something can be perfectly legal, and also rude, obnoxious, bothersome, scummy, in poor taste, crappy, disgusting, or underhanded.
Or, if we go all the way back to page 1 and the OP, the people outside the clinic doing the filming can be “pretty threatening” to those trying to go in. While still being legal.
And going back to the OP, I agree that their tactics are indeed a “piss-poor way of getting (their) righteous message across.”
It appeared to be a response to the exchange you were having with Bricker about allegedly selective enforcement, which began, I believe, with your assertion that,
I’d find it hard to believe that “sidewalk counselors” are assaulting women on their way to clinics with any frequency, and getting away with it because of visible police bias, and nobody on the other side (our side, that is) has thought to try and document it.
In fact, it turns out the National Abortion Federation does track reported assaults around clinics (PDF), as well as other incidents of violence and “disruptions”–including picketing. There have been a few assaults, and worse crimes, but the relative numbers make it hard to conclude that such violence is currently a typical part of these affairs.
I myself am firmly pro-choice. I’ve attended major pro-choice marches, and I accompanied a friend to a clinic (the one just a few blocks north of the White House, and this was before FACE). I’ve found some anti-abortion demonstrators to be ignorant, hateful and verbally abusive.
But I will defend their right to say their piece.
Is there anything you won’t defend or minimize as long as it’s on your disgusting side? What part of ‘nobody should have to go through that to get medical care’ did you miss? Because you’re just trying to fucking minimize it and it’s disgusting. One syllable of those busybodies lying at any woman is too much.
You don’t have to go through it. Your opinion is a waste of the few seconds it took to read. And by trying to argue that it’s not illegal you’re one again splitting hairs. It’s not illegal? It’s still a shitty thing to do and just because you’re determined to defend conservative shit at every turn no matter what, you’re still defending people intruding into a woman’s sexual health. I thought even you had limits. Guess not.
Absolutely.
If the anti-abortionists want to have a rally, or spread their message through media channels, I too will defend their rights to say whatever they damnwell like.
But standing outside a clinic harrassing and filming individual women/couples who are there to have a legal medical procedure?
Nope.
It’s easy to say that if you’ve never been in the circumstances that may lead a woman to choose an abortion. There is nothing simple or easy about that sort of decision. You sound as if you think any woman who has an abortion deserves nothing but contempt.
I think you give Bricker too much credit.
He doesn’t post in this or any other abortion debate (or in debates in general) to express support for a “side”. His stated purpose is to “spoil” the expressed convictions of others if they offend his sensibilities in some way, either by being linked to a “leftist” political stance or merely being the product of deeply held beliefs (something for which Bricker has an extremely stunted capacity).
Abortion debates like this very rarely change minds. What they are good for is re-energizing one’s support for abortion rights; specifically, convincing me that it is worthwhile to continue to donate to Planned Parenthood on a regular basis.
It’s not? How wide are the sidewalks where you live. How much space is left when there are people on either side you have pass between. It’s the last few feet where protestors line both sides of the sidewalk. That’s a gauntlet in my book. And that’s on a rainy day.
It’s not a matter of what rights you have. It’s a matter of decency, and maybe a little human consideration.
I probably have a legal right to stand outside a church and tell everyone going in they are gullible fools but I’d still be an inconsiderate asshole to my fellow humans.
It’s the difference between true compassion for someone in a difficult situation, and pursuing your personal goals while feigning compassion. She told the woman she wanted to help her, didn’t she?
Look at the definitions provided here
and disorderly conduct
These are both somewhat subjective and depends on the officers. We saw a few seconds of what I assume goes on all day. Purposely trying to discourage women from seeking the services of a legal clinic.
I know the police are reluctant to interfere in a legal protest that also contains elements of religious freedom, but IMO, continuously harassing people , the patients of a specific clinic, could easily be disturbing the peace, even if the police don’t treat it as such.
For me the very idea that women going through a difficult time would need an escort to go to a clinic because of harassment from protestors is offensive.
It might be interesting for pro choice folks to organize protests outside churches and follow members as they entered telling them “we’re trying to help you, here’s a pamphlet about science,” and see how the church folks felt about it.
I didn’t see them. Is there a link I missed?
Far worse doesn’t make what was in the video acceptable.
That wasn’t the claim. But sure, I’ll agree. Yay, you win a moot point. Do you feel good now?
Okay, what word would you prefer? Calling? Hollering? Heckling? I’m entirely positive that when someone is trying to be heard on a busy sidewalk over other people, traffic noises and the rain, they’re not speaking in a conversational tone, hence, they are in fact, being loud, or at least louder than the conversation that they’re trying to interrupt. But if it’s important to you to say that it’s not shouting, fine.
Guess what? Federal law doesn’t require intimidation to happen at any particular volume to be illegal.
That wasn’t the question. The question was: would you find being followed, questioned, badgered, harangued, hollered at, belittled, prayed at (or cursed at, depending on participant) while you were walking down the street, attempting to engage in perfectly legal and acceptable acts of your choosing to be objectionable?
Would you really have no objection to having a line of people on both sides of the sidewalk, all making their negative opinion of you and your choices known while you were just trying to go about your life? Do you think that’s a common view, or can you agree that the average person probably wouldn’t so much enjoy being treated that way?
I am tired of giving a damn about the good opinions of classyladyhp, and others who are pushing their religious agenda on to other people’s lives. Pregnancy can be complicated or you can sail through, but nobody has the right to force it on you.
I don’t know that i have ever been as obnoxiously pious as clhp, but I’ve been around the same type of person enough to know that they don’t give a damn about anybody else’s wants and needs and they always know better, and they are dead fucking wrong.
If you are that religious that you don’t want access to modern medicine then go live in a cave with no electricity, no city water, phone or internet and fuck the fuck off and leave the rest of us alone.
Including that would have made no difference.
In discussions about what the law should or should not be, stating what the law is or is not at present and using that as self fulfilling evidence of your preference is rather unhelpful. In fact it is quite dumbass. Not that people don’t attempt it all the time around here.
Sure abortion is currently legal, but telling people it shouldn’t be made illegal because it is currently legal is stupid. There are good arguments, but this isn’t one of them.
It looks like you do give a damn though doesn’t it? Perhaps you should look deep within yourself and try to figure out the REAL underlying reason why my opinion that abortion is wrong bothers you so damn much:dubious:
I have not once mentioned what religion I am. You’re crazy. How in the world do you jump to the conclusion that I don’t want access to modern medicine. I clearly don’t live in a cave. I have a tv, phone and obviously an internet connection. Oh and you do need electricity for tv anyamarie:smack::smack:
I have been in that situation. Everyone thinks I don’t have any reason to believe what I believe but trust me. I speak from experience. I didn’t have an abortion and it was the best decison of my life.
While I appreciate your strong opinion on the subject, I’m not sure why you feel like you need to impose your opinions into my life. Mind your own business.
I don’t have to mind my own business. I have a right to my opinion and I can express it however many times I damn well feel like it. Who do you think YOU are that you can come on here and basically tell me to shut up:dubious:
This is a PUBLIC message board not a PRIVATE board that you run. Start your own board and then you can censor any posts you feel like censoring ok sweetie?
Sure it was:
And after you posted that, I asked:
I hope you didn’t say “that wasn’t the claim” out of some misunderstanding of the word ‘license,’ which doesn’t mean a laminated dcoument but merely permission.
So how can you say that wasn’t the claim?
Did you read your links completely?
From your second link:
Did you read that? Did you include that statement in your analysis - did it inform your opinion that this conduct is legally “disturbing the peace?”
Since the activities depicited on the video would certainly pass muster under federal law (see 18 USC § 248) I will happily accept that standard of judgement.
Yes, I agreed above that ‘objectionable’ is a highly subjective standard. Somewhere, someone will find almost anything objectionable. So I’ll agree that the behavior is “objectionable.” I do not agree that this is a meaningful standard.